BNP PARIBAS v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1605001674561
Complainant: BNP PARIBAS of PARIS, France.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama, International, PA.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotPress Inc.
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: May 12, 2016
Commencement: May 12, 2016
Default Date: May 27, 2016
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
[Examiner, please note any findings regarding multiple complainants or multiple respondents here, including any domain name you wish to dismiss.]
[Examiner, please note any Findings of Fact]
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[Examiner: Please provide your legal findings and conclusions regarding the three URS elements and any defenses raised by Respondent.]
[Examiner: If you have independently found that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods, provide your findings and conclusions here. If not, please delete this subheading.]
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
[list any domain names found for Complainant or else delete this paragraph]
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has NOT demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be RETURNED to the control of Respondent.
[list any domain names found for Respondent or else delete this paragraph]
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that
the following domain names should be dismissed without any findings; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be returned to the control of the Respondent.
[list any domain names you would like to dismiss from the complaint, or delete this paragraph]
[Delete this paragraph if it doesn’t apply]
The Examiner further finds the Complaint was brought in an abuse of the administrative proceeding or with material falsehoods as explained above. Complainant is reminded of URS Procedure 11 when making future filings.
Terry F. Peppard, Examiner
Dated: May 27, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page